editorial westfield njEnforcement One
of Issues That Must Be Addressed on Maintenance Code

In last weeks issue of The
Westfield Leader, we featured a lead
story on the proposed maintenance code for the town. In
the works since last June, the proposed ordinance,
according to members of the Town Councils Laws and
Rules Committee, solely involves exteriors of buildings
and homes.

While it is unfortunate that
some property owners in town have not maintained their
buildings, we caution the council to make sure that this
ordinance doesnt put the town in a position of
"us against them" with the "them"
being property owners in town. After all, many will feel
that a "mans home is his castle." A
maintenance code needs to address residential and
commercial properties which are way out of whack, such as
a roof that is about to collapse or a building facade
which might be in danger of crashing down on pedestrians
below.

This ordinance should not
create unnecessary violations, such as citing people for
letting their grass grow over a foot tall (the number
included in the ordinance).

We do hope that the council and
officials recognize that some persons may simply be in
ill health, elderly or financially incapable of making
the required repairs. Perhaps community groups, with both
the respective homeowners and the towns
permission, might consider pitching in to clean up, make
repairs, cut grass, etc., for those who are incapable of
making such improvements.

After speaking with a few
members of the committee, The Leader
has learned that the committee felt it had no alternative
but to create such a code to address concerns such as
rats that have inhabited at least one neighborhood in
town, or to go after property owners who have let their
grass and plants, bushes, etc., grow out of control, thus
creating unsightly conditions in some neighborhoods.
Currently, the town can only cut back plant and grass
growth when it impedes motorists, such as on some
sections of Central Avenue. This ordinance would enable
the enforcement official to enter a property with the
owners permission or with a court order if the
property owner refuses such entry.

The code would give officials
the power to order that a building be razed if it is
reasoned that the repairs of a building exceed the total
market value of the building. In all circumstances,
property owners will have a right to an appeal before a
Property Code Enforcement Committee. This committee, to
be formed as part of the new code, would include the Town
Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Officer, Building
Inspector and Fire Safety Officer. The enforcement
officer for the code will not serve on this committee.
Thus, if any of these officials issued a specific
violation notice they will not serve during that case.

The ordinance also includes a
section on motor vehicles and boats. Vehicles which are
unregistered and uninspected would not be permitted to be
parked or ungaraged in the town. Also, motor vehicles and
boats that are in a state of disassembly or disrepair, or
in the case of boats undergoing a total overhaul, would
have to be garaged under the proposed ordinance.

One area which drew concern by
at least one council member was the requirement that
street numbers on homes and buildings would have to be
displayed in a position that is "easily
observable" and readable from the street.

Exterior walls and fences
"shall be free of holes, breaks, loose or rotting
boards or timbers" which might admit rain, thus
causing dampness to interior walls. Chimneys would also
have to be kept structurally "safe, sound and in
good repair." Multi-dwelling buildings and those
structures where food is prepared, packaged or stored,
would be required to have screen doors and window
screens.

Commercial buildings with
vacant storefronts would be required to install temporary
drop screens to obscure vacant interiors from passers-by
and motorists.

The ordinance also includes
language for hardship cases which will enable persons to
seek a modification of a violation and/or demolition
order.

One of the biggest concerns
brought up by council members, and which we believe is
justified, is who will have the time to enforce the new
ordinance. The building department is up to their
eyeballs in applications, thus the construction code
official may not be able to take too much more on his
workload.

Also, the health officer not
only serves Westfield, which includes inspection of all
Westfield food and drink establishments, including
restaurants, but also the towns of Mountainside, Garwood,
Springfield and Roselle Park. Adding another
responsibility might be difficult.

We believe more discussion is
needed on this volatile issue. The council needs to
continue to educate the public on this code before this
ordinance is introduced at a public meeting. A number of
areas will probably have to be fine tuned, including
enforcement.

The goal of this ordinance
needs to be towards enhancing Westfield as a fine place
to reside, shop and do business. Thus, if this code looks
at overflow of rubbish on private property, the existence
of rats, building facades in poor condition, and those
properties where grass has not been cut in months, etc.,
than this is a good code.

But if the proposed ordinance
creates a situation for a large majority of the town,
such as repairing sidewalks that are viewed as being in
such bad shape that it constitutes "a danger to
public health and safety" to the public, than
perhaps the town is going too far. While clearing
sidewalks of snow and ice has always been a
homeowners responsibility, shouldnt the town
be more involved in making sure sidewalks are even and
not broken? Perhaps a 10-year capital improvement program
could be created to address this issue. The town could
also do the repairs and assess property owners.

We intend to keep our readers
informed as this code makes its way to the full council
for action.